Foley v. Wilson

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER   Plaintiff Benjamin Foley, a lawyer proceeding pro se,¹ filed this action against Defendants Peter Wilson and KPC, LLC for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud under New York state law.² Although Defendant Wilson, also proceeding pro se, eventually filed an Answer (over fifteen months after the Complaint was filed), Defendant KPC has not yet appeared in this action, and Defendant Wilson has failed to comply with several Court orders or otherwise indicate that he intends to defend this action since the filing of his Answer. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against both Defendants for failure to comply with the Court’s orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), and for failure to defend this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND I. Facts³ Plaintiff, a resident of Florida, and Wilson, a resident of California, entered into an agreement in February 2012, whereby Wilson agreed to purchase stock on behalf of Plaintiff from a company named Uniloc. Compl.

3, 5, 7. Since Wilson was a “large shareholder” of Uniloc and “purchasing more shares,” he allegedly offered to purchase shares for Plaintiff and to then transfer those shares to him. Id. 8. According to Plaintiff, prior to their investment agreement, Wilson and Plaintiff met on “at least two occasions” for dinner in Manhattan, New York, and Wilson visited Plaintiff’s “place of business” in Manhattan on “at least one occasion.” Foley Amended Aff., Dkt. 15 5. Plaintiff and Wilson also allegedly “discussed Uniloc and the investment opportunity” on “several occasions” while in New York. Id. Plaintiff asserts that Wilson “traveled from California to New York,” where Plaintiff has a business, “to solicit” the funds for his “fraudulent investment scheme.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Wilson’s son, Clayton, who was a New York resident and an employee of Plaintiff’s business at the time, participated in the agreement and solicitation of funds from Plaintiff by acting as “an agent” for his father. See id.